1987 (9) TMI 395 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing tax case revisions u/s 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals preferred under special or local laws.

Issue 1:
The petitions sought to condone a delay of 211 days in filing tax case revisions against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 29th March, 1986, u/s 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The last date for filing the revision petition was 28th July, 1986, but the petitions were filed on 24th February, 1987, with a request to condone the delay.

Issue 2:
The applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals preferred under special or local laws was examined. The Indian Limitation Act, 1908, did not apply section 5 to appeals under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. However, after the enactment of the Limitation Act, 1963, unless expressly excluded by the special or local law, section 5 would be applicable. The proviso to section 38 was amended in 1986, allowing a further period of forty-five days for filing petitions beyond the initial ninety-day limit. The question was whether this amendment expressly excluded the application of section 5.

Judicial Precedents:
The Supreme Court decision in Mohd. Ashfaq v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. AIR 1976 SC 2161, clarified that when a special law like the Motor Vehicles Act provides a specific time frame for actions, the discretion to excuse delay is limited. The decision emphasized that if a provision in the special law explicitly restricts the extension of time, section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to excuse delays beyond the specified limit. The petitioner's reliance on other cases was deemed inapplicable to the current situation.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petitions, stating that the amended proviso to section 38 restricted the power to excuse delays to only forty-five days. The Court clarified that its jurisdiction as a revisional authority was limited to interpreting the provisions of the Act and could not address constitutional validity concerns raised by the petitioner. The petitions were therefore deemed not maintainable and were dismissed.